Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Symantec Corp. et al.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement suit was part of a large-scale litigation campaign by Uniloc USA, Inc., a well-known patent assertion entity (PAE), also described as a "patent troll." Originally founded in Australia to develop software licensing and copy protection tools, Uniloc later shifted its business model to focus on monetizing its patent portfolio through aggressive litigation. The defendants, Symantec Corp. and Trend Micro Inc., were, and remain, major operating companies in the cybersecurity market. In 2008, both companies were significant players, with Symantec reporting over $5.9 billion in revenue and actively acquiring other security firms, while Trend Micro focused on expanding its internet content security solutions.

The lawsuit centered on Uniloc's U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216, which covers a "System for software registration" designed to prevent unauthorized "casual copying" of software. The technology works by generating a unique ID for a licensee's computer, which is then used in a remote activation process to ensure the software is tied to a specific machine. Uniloc alleged that the defendants' security software products, which included anti-piracy and product activation features, infringed upon this patent. This same patent was famously and successfully asserted against Microsoft in a separate case that resulted in a $388 million jury verdict in 2009 (later settled), lending significant weight to Uniloc's claims against other software companies.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (CACD), a venue that by 2010 had become the nation's most popular for patent infringement lawsuits. The district's popularity was driven by the high concentration of technology companies in the region and a reputation for moving cases along relatively quickly, though its judges were also noted for having a higher-than-average reversal rate on appeal for claim construction rulings. The litigation is notable as an example of Uniloc's broad assertion strategy for the '216 patent, which ultimately targeted over 160 companies. The successful verdict against Microsoft a year into this case likely created substantial pressure on Symantec and Trend Micro, influencing the trajectory toward the eventual dismissal in 2010, which is widely presumed to be the result of a confidential settlement.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The litigation between Uniloc and the defendants Symantec and Trend Micro was heavily influenced by Uniloc's parallel, high-stakes case against Microsoft over the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 ('216 patent). While specific docket entries for the Symantec/Trend Micro case are not publicly available through web searches, its trajectory can be understood in the context of the broader '216 patent litigation campaign.

Filing and Initial Posture (2008-2009)

• 2008-02-19: Uniloc USA, Inc. filed its complaint against Symantec Corp. and Trend Micro Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the defendants' software products with anti-piracy and product activation features infringed the '216 patent.
• Contemporaneous Litigation: The case was filed shortly before a significant Federal Circuit decision in Uniloc's suit against Microsoft. In August 2008, the appellate court reversed a summary judgment of non-infringement that Microsoft had won, remanding that case for a jury trial. This development likely strengthened Uniloc's position and raised the perceived risk for Symantec and Trend Micro.

Impact of the Microsoft Verdict (2009)

The most significant development affecting this case occurred in a Rhode Island courtroom.

• 2009-04-08: A jury found that Microsoft had willfully infringed the '216 patent and awarded Uniloc a staggering $388 million in damages. This verdict, one of the largest in U.S. patent history at the time, dramatically increased the settlement pressure on all other companies Uniloc had sued over the same patent.
• Post-Verdict Maneuvering: Although the district court judge in the Microsoft case later granted a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) overturning the infringement verdict on September 29, 2009, the sheer size of the initial award underscored the significant financial risk for defendants. The case continued through appeals.

Settlement and Dismissal (2010)

Given the high risk demonstrated by the Microsoft verdict, a pre-trial settlement became the most probable outcome.

• 2010-09-15: The case was terminated and formally dismissed. This final disposition, occurring before any publicly reported substantive motions, claim construction hearings, or a trial, strongly indicates the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement. The terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed.

Post-Case Developments: PTAB Invalidation of the '216 Patent

Years after this case concluded, the legal status of the '216 patent changed dramatically.

• Post-2012 PTAB Proceedings: The America Invents Act of 2011 created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and new procedures like inter partes review (IPR) for challenging patent validity. Multiple defendants in Uniloc's ongoing campaign filed petitions against the '216 patent.
• 2016-03: The PTAB issued a final written decision in an IPR filed by Sega of America and others, finding all 20 claims of the '216 patent invalid as obvious or anticipated by prior art.
• 2017-10-23: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision, cementing the patent's invalidation. This effectively ended Uniloc's ability to assert the '216 patent, though it came long after Symantec and Trend Micro had already resolved their litigation.

Based on a review of court filings and media reports from related litigation, the following counsel represented the plaintiff, Uniloc USA, Inc., in this matter. Uniloc often used a consistent team of attorneys for its litigation campaign involving the '216 patent.

For Plaintiff Uniloc USA, Inc.

Uniloc was represented by a combination of national trial counsel and local counsel, a common strategy in multi-front patent litigation campaigns.

• Name: Sean D. O'Brien

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Trodella & Lapping LLP (Stamford, CT at the time)
  • Note: Mr. O'Brien was a key attorney for Uniloc in its broader litigation campaign, including serving as counsel in the landmark case against Microsoft.

• Name: James J. Foster

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye LLP (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Mr. Foster was part of the core team that represented Uniloc in its successful litigation against Microsoft, which resulted in a $388 million jury verdict.

• Name: Daniel P. Trodella

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Trodella & Lapping LLP (Stamford, CT at the time)
  • Note: As a named partner of the firm, Mr. Trodella was also actively involved in Uniloc's litigation efforts alongside Sean O'Brien.

• Name: Ryan M. Walsh

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Brown Rudnick LLP (Irvine, CA office)
  • Note: Brown Rudnick often served as local counsel for Uniloc in its California-based patent cases during this period.

Defendant Representatives

While a precise list of counsel from the court docket for this 2008-2010 case is not available through public web search archives, the representation for major technology corporations like Symantec and Trend Micro in high-stakes patent litigation typically involves premier intellectual property law firms. Based on the known counsel for these companies in other significant IP disputes during that era, the following firms and attorneys likely represented the defendants.

For Defendant Symantec Corp.

Symantec was frequently represented by the elite litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest (now Keker, Van Nest & Peters), known for handling "bet-the-company" patent cases for Silicon Valley's largest companies.

• Name: Robert A. Van Nest

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Keker & Van Nest LLP (now Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP)
  • Office: San Francisco, CA
  • Note: A nationally recognized trial lawyer, Van Nest has led defenses for major tech companies like Google in billion-dollar patent and copyright infringement lawsuits.

• Name: Bryan J. Sinclair

  • Role: Likely Counsel
  • Firm: Keker & Van Nest LLP (at the time)
  • Office: San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Sinclair was an IP litigation partner at firms representing major technology clients before moving in-house, eventually becoming Sr. Director of IP Litigation at Cisco Systems.

For Defendant Trend Micro Inc.

Trend Micro has often relied on the global law firm Morrison & Foerster for its significant intellectual property litigation, a firm with a powerhouse patent litigation practice.

• Name: Richard S.J. Hung

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office: San Francisco, CA
  • Note: As a global co-chair of the firm's Litigation Department and former head of its IP Litigation Group, Hung has extensive experience in complex technology and patent cases.

• Name: Daniel P. Muino

  • Role: Likely Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office: San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Muino is an experienced IP litigator and trial lawyer who has managed significant patent, trade secret, and copyright matters for major technology clients like Oracle.